The Commandant, 8 A Girls Bn Ncc, ... vs Donthinaboina Yellaiah And Anr
2024 Latest Caselaw 810 Tel

Telangana High Court

The Commandant, 8 A Girls Bn Ncc, ... vs Donthinaboina Yellaiah And Anr on 26 February, 2024

          THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE K.SURENDER

                  M.A.C.M.A No.796 OF 2008

JUDGMENT:

1. The appellant, who is the Commandant of NCC filed this

appeal against the Order and Decree dated 14.11.2006 in

M.V.O.P.No.1337 of 2005 on the file of the Motor Accident Claims

Tribunal-Cum-IV Additional District Judge, Warangal, where

under the Tribunal granted an amount of Rs.64,000/- towards

compensation along with interest @ 7.5% per annum as against

the claim of Rs.1,00,000/- on account of the injuries received in

the motor vehicle accident occurred on 28.12.2004.

2. The appellant challenged the impugned award only on the

quantum of compensation awarded by the Tribunal. Therefore,

this Court is not inclined to go into other details other than the

quantum of compensation.

3. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned

counsel appearing for respondents.

4. It is the case of the claimant that while he was going in an

Auto taking cotton bales, the offending vehicle i.e., DCM Van (Girls

NCC) came at a high speed in a rash and negligent manner and

dashed against the Auto from behind resulting in injuries. The

Tribunal examined claimant/injured/P.W.1 and also the

Doctor/P.W.2 and marked Exs.A-1 to A-7.

5. The Tribunal deemed it appropriate to grant compensation

of Rs.64,000/-under various heads i.e., towards loss of earnings

Rs.9,000/-, medical expenses and extra-nourishment Rs.6,000/-,

transport charges Rs.1000/-, pain and suffering Rs.10,000/- and

disability Rs.38,000/-.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit

that for an injury of a shoulder, the amount granted is on the

higher side, as such, the question of granting compensation

towards loss of earnings at Rs.9,000/- would not arise in the

present case when the injury is simple in nature. He further

submits that the disability certificate was also not issued by the

competent Medical Board.

7. The said argument of the learned counsel for the appellant

cannot be accepted. The Tribunal had examined P.W.2, who is the

Doctor who had treated P.W.1. He entered the witness box and

stated that P.W.1's shoulder was fractured, for which reason,

there is necessity of taking rest for four months.

8. For the reason of suffering shoulder injury according to the

Doctor, the disability is at 30%. Nothing is elicited by the

appellant/respondent before the trial Court to discredit the

evidence of the Doctor. Infact, the medical certificate dated

03.11.2005 marked as Ex.A-7, is the original handicap certificate

issued by the original Medical Board. There is nothing to

disbelieve the said certificate. The grounds raised by the counsel

for the appellant cannot be sustained.

9. Accordingly, the Motor Accident Civil Miscellaneous Appeal

is dismissed. Miscellaneous applications, if any pending, shall

stand closed.

__________________ K.SURENDER, J Date : 26.02.2024 dv